Truth, Legacy, and People’s Mandate: Rethinking Revolutionary Change

Prof. Dr. Zahurul Alam :

Revolutions occupy a central place in the political imagination and historical record. They have been the engines of profound social change: toppling empires, dismantling entrenched hierarchies, and advancing human dignity.

From the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th century to the anti-colonial struggles of the 20th century, and the democratic uprisings of the Arab Spring in the early 21st century, revolutions have reshaped societies and redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state.

Yet, in today’s political discourse, the term “revolution” is increasingly invoked in contexts that lack the moral clarity, collective purpose, or transformative content that historically defined genuine people’s revolutions.

For instance, the abolition of feudal privileges in post-revolutionary France did not reject the entirety of French legal and cultural heritage: it retained elements like the civil code that promoted equality before the law.

Similarly, the Indian independence movement led by Mahatma Gandhi did not advocate the eradication of all existing social structures wholesale; rather, it aimed to dismantle colonial economic exploitation while preserving indigenous institutions of social cohesion.

In the context of Bangladesh’s independence in 1971, the liberation struggle did not erase all previous social arrangements, instead, it rejected political exclusion, inequality, and cultural domination while affirming the Bengali identity and democratic aspirations of the people.

The systemic transformation that followed sought to build a nation grounded in self-determination, human rights, and popular sovereignty.

A true people’s revolution is rooted in a known agenda, openly articulated to the masses, and validated through collective commitment and sacrifice. It builds on the achievements of the past while charting a future that reflects the aspirations of the people.

In contrast, what this article terms pseudo-revolutionary movements or mock revolutions obscure history, undermine institutional progress, and mask elite or factional interests under the guise of radical change. The distinction matters: revolutions that deny their own history risk hollowing out the very foundations of legitimacy and collective identity that enable societal transformation.

Building the Future: Inheriting and Transforming the Past
To build a sustainable future, societies do not begin with a tabula rasa. Instead, they inherit a mosaic of achievements, norms, and institutions, each with its own strengths and shortcomings. Genuine revolutionary movements recognize this inheritance and seek to refine it. They aim to modify the old by omitting systemic injustices while preserving elements that advance human dignity and collective well-being.

Empirical evidence from other transitional societies underscores the point. After the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not seek to obliterate history. It aimed to confront and transcend it. Holding both perpetrators and victims in the light of public truth allowed for a future where democratic governance could take root. Such cases show that building the future involves critical inheritance, not erasure.
Revolution: A Transparent and Collective Journey

A defining feature of people’s revolutions has been transparency of purpose and mass participation. Authentic revolutionary movements are not clandestine cabals but open convocations of the popular will. They articulate a clear program, engage in public debate, and win legitimacy through collective mobilization.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979, for example, brought together diverse social groups under a broadly shared critique of authoritarian rule, economic stagnation, and political exclusion. While its outcomes remain deeply contested, its initial phase was marked by widespread public deliberation and mobilization.

In Eastern Europe, the fall of communist regimes in 1989 was propelled by civil society organizations, trade unions, and intellectuals who made explicit demands for political pluralism and human rights. These movements did not conceal their objectives, they broadcast them, debated them, and contested them in the public sphere.

Transparency in revolutionary agenda fosters ownership. People who know why they struggle are better able to commit emotionally and intellectually to collective goals, to hold leaders accountable, and to negotiate the terms of transition. By contrast, movements that obscure their true aims or pursue them through opaque means risk fostering cynicism, fragmentation, and disillusionment.

The Pseudo-Revolutionary Threat
Not all movements that call themselves “revolutionary” deserve the label. Pseudo-revolutionary forces appropriate the language of change to pursue agendas that are neither emancipator, nor democratic. These actors seek to cloak themselves in the legitimacy of popular demands while pursuing narrow interests or elite consolidation.

The erasure of history is not a neutral act. It is a political choice that disconnects societies from the lessons of struggle, sacrifice, and progress. When movements deny or devalue past achievements, they risk dismantling the very foundations of collective identity and institutional resilience that future reforms require.

For example, the total rejection of colonial legal frameworks in post-independence, societies sometimes left a vacuum in rule of law, enabling instability and arbitrary governance. In contrast, transitional justice frameworks that acknowledge both achievements and injustices have enabled more sustainable democratic consolidation.
Erasing history creates epistemic vacuums in which misinformation and factional narratives flourish.

Without a shared understanding of past struggles and achievements, societies become vulnerable to authoritarian backsliding, identity politics, and persistent social cleavages. The absence of historical anchors also weakens democratic norms, making it easier for demagogues to claim legitimacy through fabricated grievances.

Pseudo-revolutionary forces may disguise themselves within revolutionary masses, riding waves of discontent, only to subvert the aspirations they claim to represent. They often denounce past achievements wholesale, presenting rejection, rather than critical reform, as the path forward. This is a rhetorical strategy designed to detach the public from established rights and institutions and to replace them with a nebulous promise of total renewal.

Historical examples abound. In post-colonial Africa in the 1960s and 1970s, several leaders declared revolutionary ambitions only to establish cults of personality and authoritarian regimes that betrayed their original emancipatory rhetoric. Similarly, during the Cultural Revolution in China, the mobilization against “old culture” led not to democratic renewal but to immense social disruption and repression.

Pseudo-revolutionary movements thrive on polarization, emotion, and anti-institutional rhetoric. They often depict all past achievements as tainted, failing to distinguish between unjust structures and democratic gains. In doing so, they rob societies of the cumulative progress that could serve as building blocks for genuine transformation.
Revolution Must Be Rooted in Truth
A revolution is not an act of demolition. It is an act of transformation. Genuine people’s revolutions do not arise from denial of all that has come before. They build on the cumulative achievements of struggle, refine them, and expand the realm of justice and dignity for more people. They do not hide their objectives, they articulate them clearly. They do not betray the people -they unite them around known causes.

Revolutionary forces that mask themselves in popular rhetoric yet pursue narrow or destructive ends cannot be considered authentic. They are, in effect, counterrevolutionary, subverting the aims of collective dignity for factional advantage.

In a world where political language is often commoditized and contestation is constant, it is critical to uphold the essence of revolution as transparent, grounded in historical truth, and genuinely emancipatory. Only then can societies navigate the tension between heritage and change, preserving the gains of the past while building a future that is more just, inclusive, and human-centered.

(The author is Dean, School of Business, Canadian University
of Bangladesh.)